The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the borrower Securitisation Application due to lack of prosecution after the applicant ceased attending court without representation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI
(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER) ORDER SHEET
12.04.2024 Sr. No.29
SA No.21 of 2023
| classifi -cation |
No. of Exh. |
MV Super Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Karur Vyasya Bank |
|---|---|---|
| None for the applicant. Ms Meenu P. – Advocate for defendant. |
||
| 1. Order-sheet maintained by the learned Registrar shows that the applicant stopped attending the case since 11th August 2023 and therefore, the matter is listed under caption ‘dismissal’. Even today, no representation is made by the applicant either personally or through the advocate. It appears that the applicant is not interested |
||
| in prosecuting the case any further. Hence, |
||
| Securitisation Application No.21 of 2023 stands dismissed for want of prosecution with no order as to costs. |
||
| Sd/- Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai |
Radhika
MV Super Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
Karur Vyasya Bank
Presiding Officer
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
